Prizepicksdegenerates.com

The timeline behind prizepicksdegenerates.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Jeremy Bowman Claim Number: FA2502002140141 PARTIES Complainant is SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks ("Complainant"), represented by Ashley N. Klein of Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Jeremy Bowman ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <prizepicksdegenerates.com>, registered with Wix.com Ltd. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2025; Forum received payment on February 13, 2025. On February 17, 2025, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <prizepicksdegenerates.com> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@prizepicksdegenerates.com. Also on February 17, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist. On March 11, 2025, the Panel issued an Order for Additional Submissions to Complainant to submit additional evidence to support Complainant's claims and on March 14, 2025, an Additional Submission was received from Complainant. Respondent was directed to make any further submissions addressing additional submissions no later than March 18, 2025 and no further response was received. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is the largest daily fantasy sports operator in North America and an award-winning, nationally recognized leader in fantasy sports, including fantasy esports, skill-based fantasy sports, and fantasy sports educational resources. It provides its customers with the ability, among other things, to win money prizes based on their fantasy sports lineups and it has used the trademark PRIZEPICKS in connection with these services since at least 2018. The PRIZEPICKS mark is the subject of a number of registrations at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) including Reg. No. 6032925 dated April 14, 2020, and Reg. No. 7357382 dated April 9, 2024. There are also pending trademark applications for the mark. The domain name <prizepicksdegenerates.com>, registered on January 9, 2025, is confusingly similar to the PRIZEPICKS mark as it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds only the generic word "degenerates" and the ".com" TLD. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known thereby and it is not making an active use thereof. It is possible that the domain name is being used for a phishing scheme. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith where Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's mark and it may be engaging in a phishing scheme which disrupts the business of a competitor and seeks commercial gain based on a likelihood of confusion with the mark. Respondent has also sought to conceal its true identity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS - Complainant owns trademark rights to the PRIZEPICKS mark and the <prizepicksdegenerates.com> domain name is confusingly similar to such mark; - Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and the domain name does not resolve to any web content or appear to be used in any other manner; and - The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where it is passively held. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in its PRIZEPICKS mark through registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Here, Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registration certificates.1 Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the PRIZEPICKS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <prizepicksdegenerates.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the PRIZEPICKS mark because it incorporates the entire mark and adds the word "degenerates" and the ".com" TLD. Where a mark is clearly recognizable, the addition of other words typically does not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.") As the PRIZEPICKS mark is clearly recognizable in the <prizepicksdegenerates.com> domain name and the additions of the generic word "degenerates" and the ".com" TLD do not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark, the Panel finds that the <prizepicksdegenerates.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the PRIZEPICKS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"). Complainant first contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <prizepicksdegenerates.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known thereby. It is widely accepted that WHOIS information can be used to help determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA 1617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <amazondevice.org>, <amazondevices.org>, and <buyamazondevices.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the pertinent WHOIS information identified "Timothy Mays", "Linda Haley", and "Edith Barberdi" as the respective registrants). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name, as verified to Forum by the concerned Registrar, identifies the Registrant Name as "Jeremy Bowman". As Respondent has filed no Response or made any other submission in this case, there is no evidence to suggest that it is known otherwise. Further, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use complainant's mark may support a finding that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). Here, Complainant states that "Respondent is not a licensee of PrizePicks" and there is nothing in the record to suggest that it has any authorization to use the mark. Thus, the Panel finds no ground upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, Complainant notes that the <prizepicksdegenerates.com> domain name does not resolve to any website content and is otherwise not being used. A Respondent failing to make use of a confusingly similar domain name in relation to a website typically indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent's <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message 'website coming soon!'"). See also Activision Blizzard, Inc. / Activision Publishing, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, FA 1737429 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) ("Complainant insists that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. When Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services… As Respondent has not provided a response to this action, Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.") Here, Complainant has submitted a website screenshot of the disputed domain name and the only message displayed is "This site can't be reached". As Complainant has made out a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by Respondent, upon a preponderance of the available evidence the Panel finds that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PRIZEPICKS mark at the time of registering the <prizepicksdegenerates.com> domain name. A respondent's actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in an asserted mark prior to registering a disputed domain name can form a foundation upon which to base an argument for bad faith. See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).") see also iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) ("Respondent's prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent's use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant"). Complainant claims that its mark is distinctive and well-known such that Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge thereof. Submitted into evidence are screenshots from its www.prizepicks.com website showing use of the PRIZEPICKS mark; celebrity promotional partnerships with the Dallas Stars, the Atlanta Braves, State Farm Arena, and the Stephen A. Smith Show, as well as with brand ambassadors MMA stars Sean O'Malley and Justin Gaethje and comedian Drew "Druski" Desbordes; and various industry awards won by Complainant including from Inc. 5000 in 2022 and 2023 recognizing Complainant as the fastest growing sports company and back-to-back listings on the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Further submitted are reports from various financial sources supporting Complainant's extensive sales which exceed those of its largest competitors in the sports betting industry. Finally, Respondent has not appeared in these proceedings to suggest that its ownership of the disputed domain name has a good faith purpose. Based on the evidence before it, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so to target the mark in bad faith. Next, Complainant claims that Respondent uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name does not resolve to any website and Complainant asserts that it is passively held by Respondent. It has been held in many prior UDRP decisions that non-use of a domain name for website content, will not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Rather "panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, including: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put." Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). Here, Complainant has submitted evidence relating to the public reputation of its trademark and the Respondent has failed to submit a response or submit any evidence of good faith use. Further, Complainant asserts that its "customers are common targets of 'phishing' scams, pursuant to which they are solicited to deposit funds for online competitions or to provide access to their PrizePicks accounts" and it provides articles from Security Magazine and CMIT Solutions explaining that sports betting customers are highly targeted by scammers as well as a first-hand account, posted on Reddit.com, from one of Complainant's customers explaining that they have received fraudulent text messages relating to the PRIZEPICKS service. Finally, the Panel finds it highly unlikely that Respondent has or intends to make a good faith use of the disputed domain name given that it features Complainant's well-known trademark. In this case, Respondent's failure to resolve the disputed domain name to any substantive web page, along with the totality of the circumstances, supports the Complainant's assertion that the domain name is used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <prizepicksdegenerates.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 19, 2025 [1] The Complainant also claims to own pending trademark applications for its PRIZEPICKS mark but these have been held not to satisfy the requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) for a showing of "a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights". See Jireh Industries Ltd. v. DVLPMNT MARKETING, INC. / Domain Administrator, FA 1719671 (Forum Apr. 14, 2017) ("Pending trademark applications do not confer rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") As Complainant's claimed applications have not yet matured to registration, they will not be considered by the Panel. Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.